memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Subatomic physics
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Moved from talk:Subatomic physics moved from talk:String Theory (physics) You do not know how painful it was to write about this, as I do not believe in other dimensions other than the spiritual dimension, but I didn't want to write this in the article because it is too biased.Note-That only includes other dimensions, as long as I know the truth, I will be able to do so, besides, there could be other dimensions. The Lord's Soldier 03:04, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :What? You did write the article, but you need a source from within star trek to justify giving it an article here. I would nominate it for deletion (no offense) but it has a link on space and therefore presumably some significance somewhere. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 04:37, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Um... if you are having trouble accepting the various universes and dimensions within the Star Trek universe due to religious qualms, perhaps you should leave such articles to someone else? Just a suggestion; I don't mean no offense, but it is usally best to only right on the things that interest you and don't make you feel, um... uncomfortable. --From Andoria with Love 04:57, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) I want everyone to know that I was not forced to write this , no joke, so do not bring it up again, and btw, the only gun in my house is a bb gun, unloaded, and do not insult my religion. You may see it as we are a bunch of hippocrits, but we are humans too, so we make mistakes, and any christian that doesn't believe that is not a christian. They are not ok, I am not ok, and you are not ok, but we know that Jehovah is ok, and that he made the ultimate sacrifice so in his eyes, we could be ok, and with him forever, PRAISE JEHOVAH!!! -- The Lord's Soldier 03:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::Maybe you should think about the fact that you are the only user here bringing up their religion. Misery loves company. Jaf 14:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)Jaf I am terribly sorry if I have offended anyone, if I have, I ask for your forgiveness, but seriously, praise Jehovah. The Lord's Soldier 03:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::It's not offensive, just irrelevant. You have brought it up in your edit summeries, user page, talk pages. Forcing an issue based on subjective perspective causes polarization processes to take place. All it would take is one hard headed atheist and we'd be all of next week trying to calm down a talk page. Jaf 14:21, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)Jaf I want everyone to know that I have fixed the article, it is now tied in with trek (See last paragraph of String Theory Article) and have added a link to a source of information , SuperStringTheory.COM. Since these changes have been made, and they are the corrections to errors that are why this article was going to be deleted, and the policies state if the errors are corrected, the article will not be deleted. The Lord's Soldier 03:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::Just so you know, Mr. Christian, the article is not allowed to remain on Memory Alpha unless string theory itself has been mentioned on Star Trek -- and i don't think it has. However, the term "string theory" might need definition on the page dealing with some novels about it. ::::There is currently no citation in the article linking it to an episode or movie it was mentioned in -- so the article isn't fixed, it remain uncited. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Use of Background section descriptions in the "background" subsection need to be as brief as possible unless they are describing how a "background" subtopic (such as "string theory") relates to a actual article that already exists -- this can be determined using links (for example, links to Theory of General Relativity, quantum mechanics, or graviton could be used to try and make sure that relevant topics are being discussed. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :Why does it even need to be there? It has no relevance to trek? The Last Satanist 04:05, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) Accuracy of Background Section I hate to make a bad section worse, but I've done some research of String Theory, and I think some of the stuff on in the background (which I don't think need to, or should be there anyway) is semi-innaccurate. My issue is that String Theory is in its initial stages and is still somewhat controversial among physicists. The following is taken from Wikipedia: :String theory remains to be verified. No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or falsified. Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists2 have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not yet falsifiable in the sense of Popper. :It is by no means the only theory currently being developed which suffers from this difficulty; any new development can pass through a stage of uncertainty before it becomes conclusively accepted or rejected. As Richard Feynman noted in The Character of Physical Law, the key test of a scientific theory is whether its consequences agree with the measurements taken in experiments. It does not matter who invented the theory, "what his name is", or even how aesthetically appealing the theory may be—"if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." (Of course, there are subsidiary issues: something may have gone wrong with the experiment, or perhaps the person computing the consequences of the theory made a mistake. All these possibilities must be checked, which may take a considerable time.) These developments may be in the theory itself, such as new methods of performing calculations and deriving predictions, or they may be advances in experimental science, which make formerly ungraspable quantities measurable. :Since the influence of quantum effects upon gravity only become significant at distances many orders of magnitude smaller than Human beings have the technology to observe (or at roughly the Planck length, about 10-35 meters), string theory, or any other candidate theory of quantum gravity, will be very difficult to test experimentally. Eventually, scientists may be able to test string theory by observing cosmological phenomena which may be sensitive to string physics. :In the early 2000s, string theorists revived interest in an older concept, the cosmic string. Originally discussed in the 1980s, cosmic strings are a different type of object than the entities of superstring theories. For several years, cosmic strings were a popular model for explaining various cosmological phenomena, such as the way galaxies formed in the early Universe. However, further experiments — and in particular the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background — failed to support the cosmic-string model's predictions, and the cosmic string fell out of vogue. If such objects did exist, they must be few and far between. Several years later, it was pointed out that the expanding Universe could have stretched a "fundamental" string (the sort which superstring theory considers) until it was of intergalactic size. Such a stretched string would exhibit many of the properties of the old "cosmic" string variety, making the older calculations useful again. Furthermore, modern superstring theories offer other objects which could feasibly resemble cosmic strings, such as highly elongated one-dimensional D-branes (known as "D-strings"). As theorist Tom Kibble remarks, "string theory cosmologists have discovered cosmic strings lurking everywhere in the undergrowth". Older proposals for detecting cosmic strings could now be used to investigate superstring theory. For example, astronomers have also detected a few cases of what might be string-induced gravitational lensing. :Superstrings, D-strings or other stringy objects stretched to intergalactic scales would radiate gravitational waves, which could presumably be detected using experiments like LIGO. They might also cause slight irregularities in the cosmic microwave background, too subtle to have been detected yet but possibly within the realm of future observability. :While intriguing, these cosmological proposals fall short in one respect: testing a theory requires that the test be capable, at least in principle, of falsifying the theory. For example, if observing the Sun during a solar eclipse had not shown that the Sun's gravity deflected light, Einstein's general relativity theory would have been proven wrong. Not finding cosmic strings would not demonstrate that string theory is fundamentally wrong — merely that the particular idea of highly stretched strings acting "cosmic" is in error. While many measurements could in principle be made that would suggest that string theory is on the right track, scientists have not at present devised a stringent "test". :On a more mathematical level, another problem is that, like quantum field theory, much of string theory is still only formulated perturbatively (i.e., as a series of approximations rather than as an exact solution). Although nonperturbative techniques have progressed considerably — including conjectured complete definitions in space-times satisfying certain asymptotics — a full nonperturbative definition of the theory is still lacking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) I think we should have short background section explaining what the theory is in basics, but not devulge into details which are neither proven nor relavent to Star Trek. Jaz 05:47, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC) Deletion rationale This page was created to satisfy content initially conceived under the title "String Theory" based on the novel Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory. Meanwhile, the talk page (posted above) started rocking, and turned the whole thing into an even bigger farce. Two years later, and the article is still not cited. In my attempt to collect all science references, I have found noreferences to string theory (the basis for this article), nor subatomic physics. I suggest deleting it and forgetting about it, and, if necessary, parse out any useful information to more relevant articles. --Alan del Beccio 07:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Discussion *'Delete'. Not specifically mentioned in Trek. --31dot 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Admin resolution * Deleted --Alan del Beccio 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)